I've only recently switched over to Canon and I am still somewhat unfamiliar with the lens range. I would like to have something to reach out for some model shots (with strobes) and some on-tripod landscape/nature shots shooting between f/5.6-16. I don't really shoot enough of these kinds of shots to warrant the cost of the L options. How are the 75-300mm 4-5.6 and the 18-200 4-5.6 for these kinds of applications at above f/5.6?

The lesser costing EF 70/75-300 lenses are Canon's entry level offerings and as the old saying goes...you get what you pay for...that said, these lenses are quite usable and are a good starting point when you have budget issues.

I completely agree with Ian's comments, you will get better and much better results with the 70-300 IS and even better with the 'L' version.

The link below is to a post I made here on FM a while back, exposure details of the image are included, plus the body and lens; 40D and 75-300 III non-USM.

StillFingerz wrote:
The lesser costing EF 70/75-300 lenses are Canon's entry level offerings and as the old saying goes...you get what you pay for...that said, these lenses are quite usable and are a good starting point when you have budget issues.

The link below is to a post I made here on FM a while back, exposure details of the image are included, plus the body and lens; 40D and 75-300 III non-USM.

In this instance it isn't really a budget issue, it is more a cost:use ratio. If I am only using that lens to make, for instance, 300.00 worth of images in a year, I can't really justify the cost of a $1000+ lens. Especially when that money can be used on lenses in the ranges that I shoot with daily. Most lenses are fairly sharp in their mid-range aperture so that is why I was considering snagging a lesser model. It lets me get the shots without feeling like I am going to have to amortize the cost of the lens over numerous years.

In the link you posted you mentioned that you felt the 55-250 was better than the 75-300, how does the 55-250 IS II stack up to the 70-300?

abraxsis wrote:
In this instance it isn't really a budget issue, it is more a cost:use ratio. If I am only using that lens to make, for instance, 300.00 worth of images in a year, I can't really justify the cost of a $1000+ lens. Especially when that money can be used on lenses in the ranges that I shoot with daily. Most lenses are fairly sharp in their mid-range aperture so that is why I was considering snagging a lesser model. It lets me get the shots without feeling like I am going to have to amortize the cost of the lens over numerous years.

In the link you posted you mentioned that you felt the 55-250 was better than the 75-300, how does the 55-250 IS II stack up to the 70-300?...Show more →

I've a friend that shoots with the 18-55 and 55-250, she uses Rebel bodies. She has shot with my 28-90 and 75-300, did so before getting the 55-250. We compared images and the 55-250 has a bit less CA when viewed at 100%, stopped down a bit the 55-250 had a slight edge in corner sharpness and it's contrast was a bit better.

The 70-300 IS non-L is a better lens then the two listed above. I shot with one for three years on my film bodies and for a few months on a 40D. I sold the lens after comparing images from it and the 70-200 f4L IS which I bought with the 40D...imho this 70-200 is stellar.

If you don't need the extra mm from 200-300 and/or IS you might look at a used 70-200 f4L. It will be around the same price as the 70-300 IS non-L, and it will have a better resale value later on if you want/need to sell it.

If you need the extra 100mm reach, get the 70-300 IS, the only very minor quibble for me was you can't just grab the focus ring and focus, there's no FTM, you must turn AF off via the switch...otherwise it's quite a nice bit of glass!

I used it for a long time and have a big regret about letting it go . It made a good quality lighter lens to have in the bag.
I've tried a 55-250 which I must say may well have been a poor copy of that lens. Lots on here say its as good if not better IQ wise than the 70-300 but I found the one I tried to be nowhere near as good in the IQ department.
But even if a better one is as good IQ wise I will say I couldn't have one because the AF was not upto the 70-300 . It was slow and noisy .

Now as jerry says the AF on the 70-300 is not as good as the proper USM lenses. If it had a good fast ring USM it would be a near ideal lens . And it is possible at that price point because nikons version has great optics and great AF. Also I had before the 70-300 a 100-300 USM (not the old L) and that had really fast ring USM . It lacked the IQ and is though.

As I said above the other lens to look at is the Tamron 70-300 VC. It has very good AF with a very good IS system . The optics are better than the canon as well (getting on for the L)

The downsides are that the lens is quite fat , and while the AF is accurate and quiet its a little bit slower than the canon USM system .

Now all of the above being said I will also say hat Jerry is on the right track when he mentions the 70-200L non IS . If your using strobes for model shots then IS wont really be a consideration. The 70-200L is a great lens that can be had used for a very decent price . It will also hold its value very well .